RAIGOUDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. The petitioners are accused of offences punishable under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act', for brevity), apart from the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC', for brevity).

(2.) It transpires that, a complaint was lodged before the Magistrate in terms of Section 32 of the Act. The jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is now vested with the Court of Sessions and the complaint having been lodged before the Magistrate, the Magistrate had taken cognizance and thereafter, that the matter stands committed to the Sessions Court. It is this procedure that is sought to be questioned as one of the grounds.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that, the Sessions Court, on such committal, had framed the charges, whereas, only the complainant was examined and though witnesses were cited in the complaint, no witnesses were examined. Hence, the learned Counsel would submit that, merely on the basis of the evidence of the complainant, charges having been framed, would be highly irregular and is not in accordance with law.